JoshuaZ comments on ...so did we now get cold fusion to work or what? - Less Wrong

-10 Post author: Friendly-HI 25 May 2013 01:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (30)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 25 May 2013 11:02:19PM *  3 points [-]

I'm not sure I like Q2. Cold fusion that would generate power seems much less likely than "there's interesting chemistry going on in the setups that is a real phenomenon and isn't well understood." As written it lumps a variety of distinct questions together in a way that may not be helpful. Note also that Rossi's apparatus is in general pretty different from what most versions of cold fusion setups have done, so I'm confused as to how anyone can conclude much from this paper strongly in the negative direction.

Comment author: satt 26 May 2013 01:41:14PM 1 point [-]

I basically agree with you. I figured even a crude poll made more sense as a way to summarize LWers' views on cold fusion than simply posing questions in a Discussion post, but reasonable people can disagree with that call.

Cold fusion that would generate power seems much less likely than "there's interesting chemistry going on in the setups that is a real phenomenon and isn't well understood."

This is true, but I'd guess power generation is the dominant reason for most outside observers' interest in cold fusion (such as it is). Cf. ordinary hot fusion, which motivates interesting research about MHD instabilities, designing tokamak casing materials, and so on, but is nonetheless mostly of interest as a potential power source.